WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK-3) today introduced in their respective chambers the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) Act of 2013. The legislation would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a report on the purchasing of ammunition by federal agencies, except the Department of Defense, and its effect on the supply of ammunition available to the public. The AMMO Act would restrict agencies from obtaining additional ammunition for a six-month period if current agency stockpiles are higher than its monthly averages prior to the Obama Administration.

“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Inhofe. “One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition. As the public learned in a House committee hearing this week, the Department of Homeland Security has two years worth of ammo on hand and allots nearly 1,000 more rounds of ammunition for DHS officers than is used on average by our Army officers. The AMMO Act of 2013 will enforce transparency and accountability of federal agencies’ ammunition supply while also protecting law-abiding citizens access to these resources.”

“After hearing from my constituents about the shortage of ammunition in Oklahoma and the Department of Homeland Security’s profligate purchases of ammunition,” said Lucas. “We have introduced the AMMO Act of 2013 to curtail these purchases so Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without being encumbered by the federal government. I was surprised to find out the DHS has the right to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years, while it already has two years worth of ammo already. This is an issue that must be addressed, and I am pleased this legislation provides us the opportunity to do so.”

Comments Off on Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) Act of 2013

Just because the anti-second amendment people were held in check recently in the US Senate this is NOT the time to get complacent.

Recent actions in Colorado, Connecticut and New York show that there are still ways that those who are anti-second amendment can chip away at the rights of the citizenry. Actions are pending in some other states, most notably Maryland.

It is also ironic that most of those states want those companies that are established there, to remain there, yet they can’t do or are restricted from doing business in those states. But, those states would receive the benefits (tax income) from sales outside of their states. Example: Magpul is planning on leaving Colorado. That is good. If they had stayed thee would have been sever restrictions on the sales of their products in Colorado. But, if folks in let’s say Kansas bought their products, that would be positive for their bottom line and then Colorado would have benefited from that. Cheers to Magpul for not putting up with Colorado’s nonsense.

Apparently there are some challenges to the new laws being planned in those states. That’s good. Many firearms and accessory companies are adjusting their marketing so as not to sell to government agencies in those states. That is good. Now, folks must politely suggest to companies (manufacturers of firearms and accessories) that are still located in those states that they relocate to more friendly states. More info on that later.

An Overland Park, Kansas anti-gun group again misleads the public. The Gun Violence Protection Project on their web site at http://www.gvpp.net/default.html makes the following statement:

“Gov. Brownback signed a law that will allow people to enter almost all public buildings except schools with concealed carry weapons. Tip for librarians and city hall clerks: Don’t press a patron too hard to pay an overdue fine or disputed tax. It’s not smart to piss off somebody who might be packin’.”

What this group fails to say is that the bill will actually make public buildings safer. Public buildings will still be permitted to post the “no guns” signs, but if they do, then they have to provide security to include detection equipment to insure that nobody with a gun gets into the building. Currently, law abiding citizens honor the “no guns” signs, but those bent on perpetrating violent actions could care less. Proof: Look at the places where mass shootings have taken place……….gun free zones.

Retail establishments are not affected by the new law. As such, retail establishments that post the “gun free” signs are in actuality inviting criminals to perpetrate their horrendous deeds since they know that nobody in those places will be prepared to offer a defense. So, look at the list that they have published at http://www.gvpp.net/blog/2013/04/08/Patronize-These-No-Gun-Merchants.aspx

Some individuals might want to download these two files. They can be used on any standard blank business card sheet available at most office supply stores. Run the card sheet through your printer using the side one template. Then run it through reversed so as to print out the side two template.

The Outdoor Channel which films four of its shows in Colorado will no longer do that. And, hunters are reportedly cancelling reservations made with various outfitters. The Rocky Mountains stetch from Montana to Texas. I’m sure, hunters (and skiers too) could find friendlier areas to pursue their activities.

As a result of the action in the US Senate yesterday this item appeared in a news article:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose personal fortune has helped to fund a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, called Wednesday’s vote a “damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington.”

Duhhhhh…………..isn’t his group a “special interest” group? So, he would rather have his “special interest” group have a stranglehold on Washington? That’s why I despise the use of the term “special interests”. Every group is a “special interest”. It’s only a negative if their special interest conflicts with your special interest. Same goes for that other misused term, “agenda”. Everybody has an agenda. They better………they need to have a path…………….but if their agenda is in conflict with your agenda then it’s bad.

Read how the father of a police officer who was killed in the line of duty spoke out recently in Albany, NY against the gun law that Gov. Cuomo shoved down everyone’s throat. Why did he speak out? Because the NY law will not stop criminals from their deeds, but it could make criminals of normally law abiding citizens. Read why at least 50 of New York’s 62 counties passed a law asking for either repeal or changes in the new law. Why doesn’t Obama fly this man to DC to address Congress? Why didn’t he fly the Sandy Hook father who spoke out against the new Connecticut law as being useless? Why? Because they speak with common sense and logic.